Talk:Same-Sex Marriage/@comment-5298819-20121013220027/@comment-3485791-20121230181327
Please, don't pretend like you're an expert on the First Amendment, because this debate clearly proves you aren't. Believe it or not, other people study the Constitution as well, and given that you fail to see that, as neither the government nor any sort of morals not traced directly back to religion, this is a solely religious issue, it seems that your grasp on the First Amendment is not so strong as you believe it to be. Here's a key point in my argument, OR, and yes, this is what enables me to answer your question: If the government were to put up, say, a cross in front of the Capitol Building/White House/whatever, they wouldn't be putting up all of Christianity; the cross is only a portion of the Christian religion, as is that famed verse in Leviticus: "Blah blah gay sex is bad blah blah they will go to Hell blah blah." Therefore, as both are a part of the Christian religion and serve no secular and/or moral purpose (to anybody other than Christians, of course; however, as government is an entity spereate from Christianity, this point is moot), either could be viewed as establishing a religion. I'll recognize a key difference here, however; as many religions harbor beliefs that homosexuality is immoral while only Christianity uses the cross as a symbol of its religion, it's not impossible to argue that outlawing homosexuality is not necessarily establishing Christianity. However, the point is that it is still establishing religion in general, whether it's more than one religion or a sole religion. Just to ensure you don't blow off this part of my argument, because I've seen you do so before and this is a key point, I'm putting the next words in all caps, bolded, and italicized. Not yelling, haha. ****''YADAYADAYADAYADAYADAYADAYA***** Okay, so, this is my challenge for you: Name the secular purpose that banning gay marriage serves and don't say pro-creation; we're over-populated as is. For the record, I am well aware of the notion that the issue of outlawing same-sex marriage violates the 14th Amendment, though just as you, I'm not particularly knowledgable about that amendment and therefore cannot formulate a fair opinion of it. Mama Grizzly: What you just did is you took the idea of loose constructionism - which I'm not attacking; I lean more towards loose constructionism myself - and twisted it and morphed it and transformed it into something unrecognizable. The Constitution also doesn't require us to outlaw murder, but we did it anyways. It doesn't require us to outlaw robbery, but we did it anyways. Doesn't require us to outlaw rape, to allow blacks and whites to eat in the same restaurants--in fact, the basic Constitution and the Bill of Rights themselves encouraged slavery. Slavery! Did we or did we not outlaw slavery? We've done a lot of things that the Constitution didn't absolutely ''require. Why not same-sex marriage? I'm sorry, but of all the arguments I've heard so far on this page which thus far have been rather unconvincing, this one is the least relevant.